RFC: Don't use /127 as P-t-P prefix length?

[itojun@iijlab.net]

>Hello,
>I presented very quickly my draft:
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-savola-ipv6-127-prefixlen-01.txt
>at 6bone meeting at IETF53:
>http://www.6bone.net/ngtrans/minutes/default.htm
>There was basically zero time for discussion so I was asked to take this 
>to the mailing list.
>This is an operational problem, and the workaround or the fix (however you 
>can phrase it) is to use basically anything other than /127 for P-t-P 
>links.

	I agree with what the draft says, and I like option 1 in the solutions
	section (use /64) the most.

>- forget about the whole thing, it's their problem!
>- informational or BCP individually?
>- informational or BCP through ipv6 w.g.?
>- discussion added to address architecture draft / coming IPv6 node 
>requirements, ... ?
>- other thoughts?

	not sure where this kind of document should be placed - informational
	RFC?

itojun